Your friend's friend is a psychic doctor? Or is that your odd way of
claiming you are infinitely more qualified than a career auto mechanic?
Maybe you are just fond of wacky non sequiturs, since I didn't mention
anything about my sense of smell.
Dillon asked an honest question and I provided an honest answer from a
source I trust. He is entitled to know what I was told by a qualified
mechanic, whether it fits your explanation, or mine, or neither. What he
does with the info is his business. I would have reported it all the same,
though I have the distinct impression you would not have been so impartial.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me - I have certainly been
wrong from time to time, often quite publicly - but the boorishness of your
posts is inexcusable. As you may have guessed, what you think no longer has
any importance to me, and I am sure the feeling is mutual... so why the
dude, you're being an ass. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down
version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or not.
as for your "friend", if someone came to me and said they could smell
gas, i'd say you needed to check for leaks. BUT /i/ would also ask what
the situation was, and given the facts from the OP, and knowing the
science, the reality goes beyond that. and if your "friend" /doesn't/
ask those kinds of questions, it's because they ant you out of their
oh, the temerity for calling a drama queen for what they are. left to
your own devices, you'd have had the whole damned neighborhood burned
down by now just to prove a point.
Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as dumb as
they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea about the
injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be that grossly
ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know injectors produce a
fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that they have to be cleaned
or replaced. How could you not know that the manifold is a wind tunnel at
that point, which makes it impossible for the manifold to collect gasoline?
Have you *ever* flow and pattern tested a fuel injector? No, you obviously
haven't - you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with
your own eyes. That is to say nothing of the ludicrous concept that the
gasoline vapors would pour past the closed throttle plate and through the
air filter and intake plumbing to create the "strong smell" the OP reported.
I'm sure you will favor us with the equations for your "physics" for all
that - you are bragging you understand all that. You can even "dumb it down"
by leaving out the partial pressures of the more volatile components of the
winter blend being used and assume it is all octane. It isn't even all that
hard - by estimating the cross-section of the intake manifold branches and
using the known displacement and idle RPMs you can calculate the peak and
average air velocities past the injectors. With your superior knowledge of
physics I'm sure you can calculate the average particle size of the injector
output for the rated rail pressure and the fluid flow equations for the
dispersal in the intake, including the lateral displacement of the plume in
the previously calculated air stream. You can also calculate the diffusion
past the obstacles I mentioned (you can assume a 500 millibar drop across
the throttle plate at idle - it will be close enough for this purpose and
will allow you to estimate the effective throttle opening at idle) to arrive
at the vapor outflow rate at the mouth of the intake. Otherwise stop with
your bogus claim of "physics." If you nail the equations I won't even take
exception at your petty insults. Otherwise we will know you are a loudmouth
know-nothing... as if we really doubted it now.
Put up or shut up.
oh brother - where do we start with you michael? how about we start
with the fact that gasoline is liquid. it takes time and energy to
evaporate. add air to the mix, and the evaporation rate changes. and
if it's sprayed onto cold metal, which it is until the engine warms up,
a significant portion /remains/ liquid. that's why injection runs rich
on cold engines. if it didn't, there'd be no need to do that!
oh dear, wrong again.
- you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with
red herring if you don't understand basics like evaporation.
er, intake mass flow is not "diffusion".
translate pressure drop into evaporation at ambient. show the cooling
effect if you want to show off.
Stop waffling and show us the math. You claim the atmosphere is condensing,
which is contrary to the entire point of electronic fuel injection (if it is
condensing, the indefinite lag makes control of the mixture impossible). In
your fantasy world a carburetor would work every bit as well; just shove
gasoline down its throat and the engine runs when cold. You call it
"physics", so I want to see it. It's your screwball theory - defend it or
stop spouting nonsense. So far, everything you have asserted has only
illuminated your ignorance of automotive basics. If your vision of "spraying
the gasoline onto cold metal" were accurate the engine would already be
flooded, as anybody who has dealt with a flooded engine knows.
You seem to have no idea what "rich" means in this context. The problem is
one of producing a combustible mixture at the plug in spite of the lower
vapor pressures at lower temperatures. To do that the mixture is shifted
toward the rich end, but there is not a lot of margin for movement; if the
mixture goes above 13.1:1 (from the nominal 14.7:1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry) it won't burn - the engine is flooded.
From "The Physics Factbook" at
hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ShaniChristopher.shtml "The mixture cannot burn
when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn."
Ideal 6.8%, maximum 7.6%, or no more than an extra 12% or the engine
floods - that is what "rich" means in a gasoline engine.
I'm still waiting for the physics you claim, professor, not hand waving
arguments. You are still off on that garbage about the injectors "spraying
onto cold metal" - which is strange, since you claim to have flow and
pattern tested injectors; you would not think such a stupid thing if you
even understood the significance of the pattern. You have not offered even
an explanation how the injector output, even if it were a stream, would end
up on the intake wall instead of being summarily sucked into the cylinders
as it must be for EFI to operate.
From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric alignment
of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors which will
control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the area of the
intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with carburetor engines and
single-point injection systems, manifold-wall fuel condensation in
multipoint injection systems is reduced significantly." I heard that
somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed that out to you and you arrogantly
waved it off, preferring to insult me instead. It appears the best you can
do is discredit your own contentions. You have also failed to address the
problems of getting vapors past the throttle, the air filter and the intake
plumbing, and into the ambient air in sufficient concentration to produce
the "strong smell" that started this whole thread..
You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands around.
Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the basis of your
now let's see:
1. i explain the wetting situation, but the drama queen goes nuclear
with "if tomorrow the OP reports a fire that destroys his Fit and
possibly his home".
2. i cite a text book corroborating precisely what i explained, but
based on the above, it's apparently too hard to understand.
and yet i am the one with the problem! ridiculous.
So in answer to my question, after four opportunities you can *not* present
the "physics" you have been babbling about. You are a fraud.
You aren't keeping up with the subject at all. Your points were disproven by
the source you cited as detailed in the last post (did you even read the
page you posted?) You haven't tried to explain how the remnant of vapor in
the manifold is supposed to get out, or quantify the amount in the manifold,
or answer *any* relevant question posed. You ridiculed the evaluation of a
professional, just because you didn't like what he had to say. Your myth is
busted but you still think you must save face rather than admit an error
like normal people do.
You are indeed the one with the problems - you are unable to keep up with
even this simple subject, instead rambling and blustering with every post,
just as you did this time. You use bullying taunts (as you just did again)
to try to deflect examination of your errors - an even uglier problem that
does not speak well of your present mental capacity. Those are really huge
problems you have. I hope you are just drunk when you post, because it is
really sad to think of you having those deficiencies when sober. Take care
Too late - I was a senior communications field engineer for a Fortune 100
company from about 1990 to about 2005. Now a senior IS field tech for the
same company; more challenging, more troubleshooting, pays better, get
stranded in some of the most beautiful places in Northern Arizona. Among
other duties, I determine where microwave system troubles originate and go
there with what I expect to need to correct the problem - which can include
damage from lightning strikes - and I have to make it happen better than 9
times out of 10. I describe the job as "taking Computer Age skills to the
end of Bronze Age roads in any weather at any time of day or night." I have
been a troubleshooter professionally since August 10, 1970, after I got my
FCC First Class Radiotelephone license at age 17, and as an amateur since I
was 14 years old. I have done essentially all the maintenance on the cars in
my family since moving to Arizona in 1974, taking most of them beyond the 20
year mark. (BTW, I have never in my life had a grade lower than an A on any
physics test.) Your qualifications?
At 17. You talk a big game but never take the field. Since 2/3 of applicants
failed the test the first time around it isn't as trivial as you make it out
to be. Actually, element 3 (not element 4) was the one that got most people.
Several questions in the real test had more than one right answer: In a
transmitting tetrode, when the plate is tuned to resonance the (A) plate
current rises (B) screen current rises (C) cathode current drops (D) grid
current drops. I remember it because it was the most esoteric question on
the test, and my favorite. The answer was (C); although B was also correct
it is not used as an indication of resonance because it can be the result of
other operating conditions. (A is simply wrong, D is an indication of
improper neutralization.) But I'm sure you would have breezed through, what
with your superior abilities and all.
BTW - if the book still refers to first and second class licenses you should
retire it, even if it is the classic study guide "Electronic Communication"
by my friend in the San Leandro Amateur Radio Club, Robert Shrader. The
"class" licenses were replaced by General Radiotelephone licenses around
1985, when only the international classes of stations were retained as
requiring them. The bottom line is: before I was old enough to buy tobacco,
but smart enough not to, I was licensed to be employed as chief engineer at
any radio or television broadcast station or any other transmitting site in
So, again, what are your qualifications? What are you hiding?
That says it all. You have no qualifications whatsoever. We suspected as
much but at least we heard it from you. That explains why you refused (were
unable?) to stay on topic and squirmed whenever the topic became in the
least technical. It also explains why the big bluff of having "physics" but
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.